Andrea Bigby v Forest Circuit of the Methodist Church — 2025

The Claimant, a Circuit Administrator employed from February 2016 to March 2024, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages following her redundancy. The Tribunal accepted that there had been historic errors in the Respondent's handling of her pay and pension, and found the Claimant to be an honest and credible witness whose suspicions about the timing of the redundancy were understandable. However, the Tribunal also found Reverend Long, who made the redundancy decision after joining the Circuit in September 2023, to be honest and credible, and accepted his account that the role was no longer required because the Circuit had almost halved in size and administrative work had reduced.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the range of reasonable responses test from Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones, together with the procedural fairness principles in Polkey v AE Dayton Services, the Tribunal concluded that the redundancy situation was genuine, that placing the Claimant in a pool of one was reasonable given her unique role, that consultation took place, that alternatives such as reduced hours had been considered, and that an independent appeal panel had reviewed the decision. The dismissal was therefore not unfair.

On the wages claims, the Tribunal found the Claimant had been paid her final salary in full (her leaving date being mid-month) and dismissed that complaint. On pensions, while accepting the Respondent's argument that pension payments are not wages under section 27 ERA, the Tribunal held it was arguable that this exclusion applies to employer contributions and that unauthorised deduction of the employee's contribution is an unauthorised deduction from wages and/or a breach of contract. That claim succeeded and the Respondent was ordered to pay the agreed outstanding amount within 28 days if not already paid.